public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
To: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: David E. Wheeler <[email protected]>
Cc: Greg Stark <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)
Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 10:40:12 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

On Thu, May  8, 2014 at 04:37:05PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-05-08 10:34:04 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Thu, May  8, 2014 at 10:16:54AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > Can we hash just the values, not the keys, in jsonb_ops, and hash the
> > > > combo in jsonb_hash_ops.  That would give us key-only lookups without a
> > > > recheck.
> > > 
> > > No, because there's nothing in JSON limiting the length of keys, any more
> > > than values.
> > > 
> > > I think the idea of hashing only keys/values that are "too long" is a
> > > reasonable compromise.  I've not finished coding it (because I keep
> > > getting distracted by other problems in the code :-() but it does not
> > > look to be very difficult.  I'm envisioning the cutoff as being something
> > > like 128 bytes; in practice that would mean that few if any keys get
> > > hashed, I think.
> > 
> > Yes, that would be nice.  Ideally we would not be doing this so close to
> > beta, but it is what it is, and if we need to break binary compatibility
> > after beta1, at least we have pg_upgrade.
> 
> If we break binary compatibility pg_upgrade won't be able to help. Since
> the data files wont be, err, binary compatibile.

Oops, yeah.  pg_upgrade only helps with system table changes. We would
have to require users to dump/reload any changed tables or recreate any
indexs.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[email protected]>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

view thread (65+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox